Cooperation with Grace

[Johan]

When I consider these verses together, if I take the Sola Fide position; it makes Saint Paul’s teaching contradict itself.

Consider this: If we’re justified by faith alone and the Law only condemns us; why would doing of the Law justify?

The Law does of course not condemn a righteous individual. So if you actually keep it, it will not condemn you. But you break just one of its commands, you are under a curse.

For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.” (Gal. 3:10)

So there is no contradiction involved. Paul expects us to put two and two together and reach the conclusion: there are no doers of the Law! That is the plain reason why it cannot justify anyone.

Now, if I take the Catholic position that it’s faith and works together that justifies us before God; an interesting thing happens.

Faith justifies as Saint Paul says and doing of the Law justifies as Saint Paul says.

But he actually never says that we are justified by keeping the Law. Instead, he maintains that “a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law” (Rom. 3:28).

Add to this; Saint James’ verses that state that Faith without works is dead and man is justified by his works and not by faith alone.

The case with James chapter 2 is that it just has to be the favorite section in the Bible among Catholic apologists. It seems to be the first passage every prospective apologist learns to use as ammunition against Protestants! But there are several details in that passage that are neglected or simply misunderstood. For instance, James did in all probability deliberately select the example of two individuals who were not under the Law. Abraham preceded the Law by several centuries, and Rahab was a Gentile. So “works of the Law” are not involved in his argument. Additionally, he does not say that Abraham was justified by habitual works. He does not present Abraham as some kind of charity worker who was “rewarded” with justification because of his long and faithful service. Rather, Abraham is said to have been justified by one single work! And the same goes for Rahab.

If not faith alone, if not works alone; then it stands that it’s both together.

Rather, James presents two paths toward justification. It’s like saying that you can order hot dogs at the snack bar and not burgers only. The word “only” acts as an adverb qualifying the verb “order”. The same goes for the adverb μόνον (“alone, only”) used by James in 2:24. He does not deny that Abraham was justified by faith long before he had works to show. Rather, he claims that Abraham was not only justified by faith, but also (subsequently) by works. Works make our faith manifest (cf. Jas 2:18: “I will show you my faith by my deeds”).

 

[Michael16]

Johan, your arguments provide much good food for thought.

For the moment, I’m going to have to prayerfully go over your arguments and later present my answer.

For the moment, the short answer is this:

The entire faith alone/faith not alone argument, I believe; is an exegetical run around.

Not attacking you personally, mind you; I hope you understand me.

Your quotation of Saint Paul’s Apart from works verse presents a teaching that works alone does not save and that faith is required. Then Saint Paul goes on to his teaching on doers of the Law.

Now, I accept that only Jesus perfectly did the Law and fulfilled the Law. No doubt in my mind at all.

However: How can it be said that there are no doers of the Law when people obey the Law, however imperfectly? When we inevitably fail; that’s where we have the Sacrament of Confession.

I don’t see your two and two conclusion of there’s no doers of the Law. Plus, to say there aren’t would render Saint Paul’s teaching in Romans to be paradoxical in my view.

What I do see in Saint Paul’s teaching in Romans that faith and doing of the Law are required in tandem.

Am I helping you to see my point?

 

[Michael16]

I’ve always understood the whole faith alone/faith not alone position to be problematic.

To me, it seems the apologetics of the Sola Fide position accepts the necessity of works while denying it’s efficacy in justification.

Saint Paul taught that RELYING, I all capped for emphasis I hope you understand me; on works of the Law does not justify.

So, this tells me that faith must be a necessary part of the salvation process. You correctly stated that relying on works, as we are imperfect beings; will only condemn us in the end.

I hope I made a good point.

 

[De_Maria]

In my opinion, it goes much deeper than that. The Law was an instrument given to Israel, and the purpose of this instrument was to reveal sin.

Agreed. But I would say that it was the main purpose. There’s another.

Exodus 20:6but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.

We believe that there is a bestowal of grace, by God, upon those who keep His Commandments.

If anyone would actually be justified rather than condemned by the Law, it would mean that this person is inherently righteous rather than a sinner.

The Law only condemns those who refuse to keep it.

Romans 8:7 The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. 8 Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God.

Those of us who love God, are not hostile to God or His Law and therefore, uphold His commands.

4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

But he also reasons that if it actually were possible for mankind to be justified through the Law, the salvific mission of Christ that culminated with the cross was superfluous.

We believe that man can be justified through the Law. It is seen in Fr. Abraham’s case. Was Fr. Abraham justified? We all agree that he was. Yet, we find that he was not approved. See Heb 11. So, there is something missing in OT justification. We walk upon Mt. Sion when we are justified.

I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing! (Gal. 2:21)

This is a direct reference to the Sacraments. Specifically, Baptism.

cont’d

 

[De_Maria]

cont’d

He further argues that the impossibility of justification through the Law is due to our sinful nature. Rather than justifying us, it reveals our weakness (the limited space does not permit me to extensively quote the Bible, so I will just give the references: Rom. 3:20; 8:3; Gal. 3:10-12).

St. Paul’s Teachings need to be read carefully and in accordance with Catholic Teaching. This is floor and foundation of St. Paul’s Teachings.

So rather than saying that we have be righteous before the Law in order to be saved, he is saying that there are no shortcuts. The Law is not to be tricked. To possess the Law, or to merely listen to the Law (like the average “Sunday Christian”) will not make you justified - you have to keep it if you are relying on the Law for your justification. So being a Jew, hearing the Law being recited on a regular basis, does not give you an advantage.

Nope. What he’s saying is that those who claim to keep the Law, but don’t. Those who merely listen to the Law and give it lip service, will not be justified BY GOD. God only justifies those who keep the Law.

Romans 2-3 constitutes a huge and well-crafted argument. In chapter 2 he presents a scenario to which no pious Jew would object: God will judge us according to our works; those who have persistently done good will enter Heaven and those who have done evil will face condemnation.

God doesn’t change. The same requirement exists today.

There is nothing distinctively “Christian” about the things he writes in this chapter. However, in chapter 3 he turns everything upside down. All people, Jews and Gentiles alike, are under the power of sin. There is no one who is righteous, there is no one who does good, there is no one seeking God etc.

This Protestant claim, that there is no one righteous, does violence to the Scriptures. The Scriptures frequently speak of the righteous in God’s eyes. One example will suffice to debunk that idea.

Luke 1:6Both of them were righteous in the sight of God, observing all the Lord’s commands and decrees blamelessly.

cont’d

 

[De_Maria]

cont’d

The inevitable conclusion is horrifying: if God would judge us strictly according to our own righteousness (or rather, lack thereof), mankind in toto would face condemnation. Having presented this extremely bleak picture of mankind, he finally guides us toward a way out of this predicament. He has skillfully paved the way for the Gospel.

Neh. He is basically pointing to the OT Saints who are listed in Heb 11. Even though they are too good for this earth, they were not good enough to enter heaven, because they were not justified by the washing of regeneration, which we receive in the Sacraments.

He also compares the Sacraments to Abraham’s example. God credited Abraham’s faith as righteousness because he acted upon his faith. For some reason, Protestants never quote this verse in Romans 4.

Rom 4:18 Against all hope, Abraham in hope believed and so became the father of many nations, just as it had been said to him, “So shall your offspring be.” 19 Without weakening in his faith, he faced the fact that his body was as good as dead—since he was about a hundred years old—and that Sarah’s womb was also dead. 20 Yet he did not waver through unbelief regarding the promise of God, but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God, 21 being fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised. 22 This is why “it was credited to him as righteousness.”

Does that sound like someone who sat around claiming, “I’m saved by my faith alone!” No. He acted upon His faith. This is why “it was credited to him as righteousness.
Read Heb 11 about Abraham. He left Ur because of his faith. He sacrificed his son because of his faith. There is no faith alone here.

But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. (Rom. 3:21-24)

Again, Protestants never quote this in Rom 4.

16 Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who have the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all.

This is music to the ears of the sinner plagued by despair: Christ offers me righteousness freely if I only receive His gift by faith!

Despair is not of God. Receiving his gift of faith is not enough. You must act upon it. If you despair that you are not good enough to act upon it, this is not the faith of Abraham. This is not the faith of Jesus Christ. Faith alone, is dead.

 

[Johan]

But I would say that it was the main purpose.

The purpose of giving the Law was to increase the trespass (Rom. 5:20), indeed to induce transgressions (Gal. 3:19) and thereby reveal our sinfulness. It was a schoolmaster and a guardian until Christ was revealed, but we are no longer under the Law. In fact, Paul states that he died to the Law in order to live for God (Gal. 2:19).

The Law only condemns those who refuse to keep it.

And that is precisely what your sinful nature, your flesh, refuses to do (Rom. 7:18).

Those of us who love God, are not hostile to God or His Law and therefore, uphold His commands.

Paul was certainly not hostile to God, nor an enemy of His Law, yet he deplored his inability to satisfy the Law (Rom. 7:14-26).

We believe that man can be justified through the Law.

Then you believe the exact opposite of what Paul writes.

Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin. (Rom. 3:20)

It is seen in Fr. Abraham’s case. Was Fr. Abraham justified? We all agree that he was. Yet, we find that he was not approved.

What do you mean by “approved”? He was, as you just wrote, justified by faith. God credited him with righteousness, and that is approval in my book.

This is a direct reference to the Sacraments. Specifically, Baptism.

What do you mean by “this”? Paul speaks of the sacrificial death of Christ and not the “sacraments”.

 

[De_Maria]

The purpose of giving the Law was to increase the trespass (Rom. 5:20),

From a Sola Scriptura point of view. But God doesn’t will that anyone will sin.

James 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

Let’s look at that verse.

Romans 5:20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:

Why did the offence abound when the Law entered? Is it because God didn’t mark the sin before hand? If that is true, why did the Flood happen and why did Sodom and Gomorrah get obliterated?

It is because man did not mark sin beforehand. But the Law teaches what is sin. Therefore, it seems to abound.

Romans 7:7What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

indeed to induce transgressions (Gal. 3:19) and thereby reveal our sinfulness.

Let’s see this one.

Gal 3:19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions,…

It wasn’t added in order that men might begin to sin. It was added because men were sinning too much and they needed to understand this.

24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

It was a schoolmaster and a guardian until Christ was revealed, but we are no longer under the Law. In fact, Paul states that he died to the Law in order to live for God (Gal. 2:19).

That’s doesn’t mean what you think it means. Everyone who keeps the Law of the Spirit, upholds the Law of Commandments. But anyone who sins, falls back under the Law of the Commandments.

Galatians 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, 23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. 24 And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.

cont’d

 

[De_Maria]

cont’d

And that is precisely what your sinful nature, your flesh, refuses to do (Rom. 7:18).

Let’s look at that, in context.

13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.

First, we see that the Commandment is good. Why? Because it reveals that our sin are killing us. The Commandment reinforces the Law in our hearts and explicitly reveals that sin is transgression of the Law.

Romans 7:18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.

Now, notice the inconsistency here. He wills the good. He doesn’t refuse it. Yet says that no good thing is in him. So, what is he actually saying? He is not speaking in a literal manner, but more of a parable.

20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:

He’s saying that he is fighting against his sinful members. So, there is good in him, but he can’t overcome his sinful members without help. Where does he get this help?

cont’d

 

[De_Maria]

cont’d

23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? 25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

Now, to us, that speaks to the grace we receive in the Sacraments. But, since you don’t see the word “sacrament” in there, you’ll deny it. C’est l’vie.

Paul was certainly not hostile to God, nor an enemy of His Law, yet he deplored his inability to satisfy the Law (Rom. 7:14-26).

St. Paul even kept the Commandments before he was a Christian.

Philippians 3:6Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.

He said what he said as a lesson to us.

Then you believe the exact opposite of what Paul writes.

Nope. Look above where he said he was blameless in the righteousness of the Law. He is saying what the Catholic Church Teaches. That you can’t be perfectly justified without Baptism.

Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin. (Rom. 3:20)

Romans 2:13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

What do you mean by “approved”? He was, as you just wrote, justified by faith. God credited him with righteousness, and that is approval in my book.

What does this say?

Hebrews 11:39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:

If he was approved, why did he not receive the promise?

What do you mean by “this”? Paul speaks of the sacrificial death of Christ and not the “sacraments”.

Because it s in the Sacraments that we receive the sanctifying grace which Jesus Christ gave us from the Cross.

774 … The saving work of his holy and sanctifying humanity is the sacrament of salvation, which is revealed and active in the Church’s sacraments (which the Eastern Churches also call “the holy mysteries”). …

1359 The Eucharist, the sacrament of our salvation accomplished by Christ on the cross,…

 

[mcq72]

just heard something interesting on Catholic radio.

Father Wade Menizis made a good point. Saint Augustine, of the ECFs quoted by Luther; said that God won’t save you if you don’t cooperate with Him. To me, this is a great refutation of much Protestant soteriology.

How do you Protestants reconcile that statement in your theology?

Well, first of all not sure Augustine wrote that with such understanding as being put forth by CC ( and exactly what is the point the Fr. Mendezis put forth?).

I thought one could read Augistine and come away with a different understanding as Calvin and I think Luther did more along lines of our complete spiritual depravity.

I mean we have a will, but it is not so free, a slave to sin nature. We have a spirit but it is dead in trespasses and sins.

So we cooperate with God only because He graced us to do so. We will to cooperate only after He graces us to do so. Our spirits follow Him only after He has quickened them.

Anyways I would challenge the scant generic utterance as posted as to what Augustine really taught and believed.

Anf of course if we disagree on biblical texts, for sure we will disagree on father writings.

 

[ltwin]

The difference in opinions comes down to whether we use free will in the salvific process. The confusion of Protestants is often attributed to understanding of a line in the NT regarding “predestination”.

Not only that. Augustine had a lot to say about predestination and man’s helplessness. A lot of Protestant theology is inspired by Augustinian themes, even if Protestants reached conclusions Augustine would not have.

@Michael16, the Protestant theologian B. B. Warfield wrote in Calvin and Augustine that “The Reformation, inwardly considered, was just the ultimate triumph of Augustine’s doctrine of grace over Augustine’s doctrine of the Church.” So, in a very real way, the theological debates between Protestants and Catholics today can be said to all stem from tensions within Augustine’s thinking.

 

[Michael16]

In all love I say this: You can’t divorce Saint Augustine’s doctrine of grace and doctrine of the Church.

 

[Michael16]

I say this in all love: You can’t divorce Saint Augustine’s doctrines of grace and the Church.

 

[ltwin]

I say this in all love: You can’t divorce Saint Augustine’s doctrines of grace and the Church.

But Protestants think you can. So there we are.

 

[Michael16]

I respectfully answer that you can’t divorce the two. Saint Augustine taught, if I remember right; that we get grace via the Sacraments of the Church.

Thus, I say that quite sufficiently deals with the Protestant assertion to the contrary.

 

[ltwin]

I respectfully answer that you can’t divorce the two.

Why can’t you? Remember that Augustine was not infallible. He was a human writer, and we are perfectly entitled to dissect human writings and take what we believe is helpful and ditch what we consider unhelpful. We are under no obligation to swallow whole everything he wrote.

 

[Michael16]

Ah, now I think we’re getting to the heart of the matter, IMO.

If you have to accept some and leave out others; you have to carefully determine what to take and what to leave out. How do I do it?

I’ll show you.

When I look at it; I feel that I have to take it all into consideration and in context with Scripture, Tradition and the other Church Fathers. What did Daint Augustine write? What did he teach? What makes sense in the light of Scripture, Magisterial teaching and the other Church Fathers? How does any of it line up with these other factors?

Does each doctrine of his makes sense in context with everything else? Or am I just making a buffet of Saint Augustine?

When I do, I look at what Saint Augustine taught about the Sacraments is that the Sacraments are the meeting points between God and man. The instruments through which God gives grace.

The only means by which we have the grace given in the Sacraments is the Church.

 

[Michael16]

Saint Augustine taught rightly that we need grace. That’s the heart of his beautiful argument against the Pelagians.

But: You have to ask yourself: Where do we get the grace and by what signs?

Ah! The Sacraments of course!

But: Where and who rightly administers valid Sacraments?

The Church.

Do you see how they go beautifully hand in hand with each other?

 

[ltwin]

Saint Augustine taught rightly that we need grace. That’s the heart of his beautiful argument against the Pelagians.

But: You have to ask yourself: Where do we get the grace and by what signs?

Ah! The Sacraments of course!

But: Where and who rightly administers valid Sacraments?

The Church.

Do you see how they go beautifully hand in hand with each other?

I don’t think a Lutheran and Reformed Christian would disagree entirely with this. A lot of their sacramental theology is also based on Augustine. Other churches lack a robust sacramental theology, so it may not be as relevant to them.